galanter wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:
Suicide bombing is the desperate reaction of subjects of foreign occupation. This is simply a fact. It may not be a just tactic, but wherever it occurs it is an indication of a radical imbalance of military, economic, and political power.

So when Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to kill 100's of civilians would you say that was a justifiable action because of the radical imbalance of military, economic, and political power he was up against?

Of course not.

It's not really a question of power imbalance at all. You've just taken a side and when your side does X it's justified, and when the enemy does X it's immoral.

And this kind of thinking leads to peace exactly how?

That's a bit of a deliberately stupid comparison. Which deserves another blunt comparison: would you say those who fought against the British in the War of Independence were terrorists? Because they killed a lot of people, not all in fashions that we would now deem honourable in the odd morality of Western observers.

Eliya, I'm really sorry, but I don't think that the kidnapping of two soldiers warrants the bombing of an airport and the killing of dozens of civilians. A proportionate response or expedition to free the soldiers is justified, but collective punishment is not. And the UK has had a fair amount of experience of dealing with terrorism, and bombing and shooting a way out did not work. It just made more angry young men.

galanter wrote:...when your side does X it's justified, and when the enemy does X it's immoral.

Your logic is flawless.

Andrew L. wrote:
I even put *suicide* in italics for you, Phil.

So your defense of intentionally targeting civilians is only for suicide bombers? Not car bombers or backpacks or road side bombs?

They are intending to kill as many civilians as possible, attacking crowded night clubs and buses during rush hour.

I'm amazed at the lack of objectivity on this issue.

Andrew L. wrote:

galanter wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:
Suicide bombing is the desperate reaction of subjects of foreign occupation. This is simply a fact. It may not be a just tactic, but wherever it occurs it is an indication of a radical imbalance of military, economic, and political power.

So when Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to kill 100's of civilians would you say that was a justifiable action because of the radical imbalance of military, economic, and political power he was up against?

Of course not.

I even put *suicide* in italics for you, Phil.

You mean that if McVeigh stayed in the truck your moral assessment of his act would change?

If Israel used kamikazee's rather than missles would you suddenly see the justice of their cause?

Let's be earnest here ok? You've chosen a side, and you are much more critical of Israel's tactics than those of the others because of that.

And thus continues this conflict decade after decade.

Again I ask, how does this kind of finger pointing lead to peace? Doesn't it just empower those who use violence to veto the peace process?

AlBStern wrote:

Andrew L. wrote:
I even put *suicide* in italics for you, Phil.

So your defense of intentionally targeting civilians is only for suicide bombers? Not car bombers or backpacks or road side bombs?

They are intending to kill as many civilians as possible, attacking crowded night clubs and buses during rush hour.

I'm amazed at the lack of objectivity on this issue.

I'm not saying that killing civilians is not wrong, or that deliberately killing civilians is not worse. However, what I am stating is that the Israeli army regularly kills civilians as part of their operations in the full knowledge that such deaths are highly likely. Sometimes they even say sorry, but not very often. Again, look at the statistics: if killing was a sport, the IDF would be a long, long way ahead.

Objectivity? The suicide bombing of civilians by Palestinians is wrong. The kidnapping of some poor lads to use as political bargaining chips is wrong. But the rolling killing of civilians, occupation of stolen land, economic blockade, de-facto apartheid and collective punishment metered out by the Israeli state is by far the greater wrong, in my opinion.

sparky wrote: Eliya, I'm really sorry, but I don't think that the kidnapping of two soldiers warrants the bombing of an airport and the killing of dozens of civilians. A proportionate response or expedition to free the soldiers is justified, but collective punishment is not. And the UK has had a fair amount of experience of dealing with terrorism, and bombing and shooting a way out did not work. It just made more angry young men.

I agree that Israel is going overboard in their retaliation but feel their response must emphatically state that no good will ever come from kidnappings.

What in your opinion would be a proportionate response that would a) have a chance at being effective and b) not invite similar kidnappings (or what ever you'd prefer to call it) in the future?

dbl post

Andrew L. wrote:Suicide bombing is the desperate reaction of subjects of foreign occupation. This is simply a fact. It may not be a just tactic, but wherever it occurs it is an indication of a radical imbalance of military, economic, and political power.

galanter wrote:So when Timothy McVeigh used a truck bomb to kill 100's of civilians would you say that was a justifiable action because of the radical imbalance of military, economic, and political power he was up against?

Of course not.

You are confusing two separate issues: any violent act can be called an 'unjustifiable action' if you measure it against the commandment prohibiting murder. But in the mind of a person 'at war' ( and you obviously haven't forgotten the ability of religious people to promote 'good wars', I hope ), then an act of violence becomes a 'justifiable action', even if resulting in civilian deaths, because the end goals of the war are just ( cite: "Galanter's Overthrow of Saddam and Occupation Of Iraq Using Bush ).

If you don't permit McVeigh the right to believe he was 'at war' with the alleged Zionist occupied government of the USA, then you can say that any act aimed at destabilizing the ZOG is unjustifiable pure terrorism.

If you can't concede that McVeigh may have a different enemies list than you, then how can you pass judgement over his alleged act ( as a co-conspirator with the aid of internal charges placed by insider collaborators in the case of OKC Murrah, but that fact is not needed for this argument )?

You can't.

Your only option is to say, "Look- innocents died", as if there are no war motives held by the underdog- same as what Israel argues against Hezbollah or Hamas-- the Israeli position is 'completely defensive posture against groundless aggression based on nothing more than racial and religious hatred'.

It's a very funny position to hold, coming from 13th tribe Zionist Khazars and Ashkenazi converts with specious ties to the biblical Hebrews and that alleged homeland.

galanter wrote:It's not really a question of power imbalance at all. You've just taken a side and when your side does X it's justified, and when the enemy does X it's immoral.

And you have given the full credit for morality to your chosen side. Which is what I would do also, if I never wanted to offer an apology for any action ever taken by the US or Israel governments, and never wanted to accept as legitimate any rationale for opposing them

galanter wrote:And this kind of thinking leads to peace exactly how?

And your advocacy of extermination for the uncooperative savage less-than-Christians makes you moral exactly how?

galanter wrote:You mean that if McVeigh stayed in the truck your moral assessment of his act would change?

If Israel used kamikazee's rather than missles would you suddenly see the justice of their cause?

Let's be earnest here ok? You've chosen a side, and you are much more critical of Israel's tactics than those of the others because of that.

And thus continues this conflict decade after decade.

Again I ask, how does this kind of finger pointing lead to peace? Doesn't it just empower those who use violence to veto the peace process?

Breaches of agreements and injustice on all sides should be pointed out. I don't call this finger pointing. How can you put something behind you when it is your face? What is your suggestion? Call every Palestinian who does not want to sit quiet about their state a terrorist?

galanter wrote:
You mean that if McVeigh stayed in the truck your moral assessment of his act would change?

Morality has nothing to do with it. I'm talking about historical reality. Descriptive claims. Nationalists use whatever means, including fear, most effective.

It's strategy, tactics, and situated means, not morality.

Israel's army chief said any site in Lebanon could be a potential military target.

Brigadier General Dan Halutz said: "Nowhere is safe [in Lebanon] ... as simple as that," he said. He addressed his warning particularly to civilians in the southern Beirut district of Dahiya, where a large number of Hizbullah militants are based.